What A Day Last Week - Immigration Bill Defeated, Fairness Doctrine Opposition
By Paul M. Weyrich
July 3, 2007
This has been an extraordinary week. The people have spoken twice -- both against the leadership. In the United States Senate, the leadership of both parties by and large was on one side. The people, as reflected by the senators who cast votes on that final cloture roll call, were with the people. In the House of Representatives all the leaders of the majority party voted against the wishes of the people. ALL of the leaders of the minority party were with the people. The people prevailed. Over 100 members of the majority party joined every member of the minority party to prevail in lopsided fashion. In my more than four decades in our nation's capital I never remember a day such as we had last week.
The establishment clearly wanted this comprehensive immigration bill. In the final vote, the senatorial leadership of both parties, except Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) voted yes. Eighteen senators who had voted to proceed with the bill earlier in the week switched their votes from yes to no.
What an embarrassment to Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (R-NV); Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy (D-CA), a committee chairman; Richard E. (Dick) Durban (D-IL), the majority whip; Trent Lott (R-MS), the minority whip; Mel Martinez (R-FL), the national party Chairman; Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the minority policy chairman; and so on. McConnell had hinted that he might not be able to support the bill, even though his president was militantly for the measure. He had voted to proceed with the bill. That lopsided vote was 64 -- 35, Tim Johnson (D-SD) not voting due to illness. The final cloture vote was 46 -- 53, 60 votes required. Proponents could not get a majority.
Everyone conceded that the bill was dead. Not until 2009, with a new president and a new Congress, could this bill see the light of day again. Everyone conceded except Senator Reid. He said he would bring up the immigration bill again. Why? With this kind of humiliation how could he possibly speak of resurrecting this bill again in this Congress?
First, he knows that the establishment overplayed their hand. Most of the real amendments which the minority sought to vote on were forbidden. So if he permitted some of those votes, perhaps he could eek out a 60-plus majority to proceed again. And just maybe if some of these amendments were permitted a vote, he might be able to proceed to final passage. But I believe that the real reason Reid wants to bring up that wretched bill again was articulated by James Boulet, Jr. of the English First organization. On that highly emotional issue the minority party is bitterly split. That makes perfect sense. If he tries to proceed with that bill closer to the election, perhaps right after Labor Day in 2008, then it can be clear that is his purpose.
Meanwhile, senators can be sounded out by the White House as to what it would take to get their vote. This is where some senators, especially those not up for re-election, might not mind trading their vote for a huge defense contract which would mean thousands of jobs for their state, or something akin to the Bridge to Nowhere, which so disgraced the last Congress.
>> Continued -- Page 1 2 3
| 
